The Uneducated Anti-Assault Rifle Warriors. Yea!!!

[Revoltingest]

How about a scenario that actually happened:


Opinion | A second-grader once pointed a gun at me. I’m glad I wasn’t armed.

Do you think that arming the teacher would have helped that situation?

What I argue is that properly vetted & trained school staff will discourage attacks
in the first place, & allow for defense if attacked, thereby mitigating the carnage.

Your scenario, a single case, resulted in no deaths.
And it really only points out that school security is extremely poor.
But I have a better case....
An Armed Principal Detained a Campus Gunman. But He’s Against Arming School Staff.

You guys keep claiming that school staff will shoot innocent students
instead of the attacker, but real world events tell us it would be otherwise.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

It's not rocket science to learn the definitions of words.

To hide behind arbitrary definitions to pretend that deadly weapons are harmless toys is dishonest. ‘Oh, the AR15 is not an assault rifle. It does not have full auto mode. See, no problem.’ As I have testified and as madmen have shown, you do not need to have full auto to kill lots of people. Semi-auto with big magazines works just fine for dealing death. To divert the discussion into semi-auto versus full auto is just a way of concealing that fact. That is dishonest.

The M4 rifle, which is replacing the M16, originally did not have a full auto mode at all. It is being replace with the M4A1 with a selectable full auto mode because the M249 belt fed squad machine gun ran into serious usability problems in the Afghanistan environment. The problems with the M4A1 in full auto mode include frequent jamming, rapid overheating, poor accuracy and – yep – running out of ammo. The three-round burst mode has always had reliability issues on all M16 and M4 weapons it was tried on. The M4, or the M4A1 in reliable semi-auto mode, is virtually indistinguishable from what you can buy in a gun shop, with only the extra inch and a half of barrel on the civilian version being the main difference. And of course you are not limited to a mere 30 rounds in a magazine like those military guys. You can get hundred-round magazines.

Where you see dishonesty, I see desire to eschew
ignorant ranting, like the kind I underlined.

What you underlined was:

“What I see as the major obstacle to any progress in this regard is that each side has an all or nothing attitude. One side: No more restrictions of any kind on firearms, even if new kinds come along that can skirt around existing rules. The other side: Totally end all gun possession, even by police.”

If this is ignorant ranting to you, then you must believe it is NOT the case that one side believes that there should be no more restrictions on firearms. What further restrictions on firearms do you think might be appropriate?

It reminds me of anti-GMO food advocacy....
Survey Finds That 30 Percent Of Americans Think Non-GMO Foods Don't Have Genes
A new Food Literacy and Engagement Poll out of Michigan State University has revealed
that 30 percent of Americans believe that non-GMO foods don't contain genes. For those
of you wondering, yes, non-GMO foods still have DNA naturally inside of them, since
everything that's living contains DNA.
The largest group of people that believe that non-GMO equals DNA-free is millennials.
Nearly half of the participants under 30 in this nationally representative poll felt that
non-GMO translates to no genes. In contrast, about a fourth of those surveyed over
55 agreed with that statement.

Basic knowledge of genetics isn't rocket science either.
Now, don't get me started on the gluten free frenzy!

Once again a diversion into irrelevancy to avoid dealing with the issue at hand. We are not talking about GMO or gluten. We are talking about semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines chambered in lethal military calibers, weapons that were originally designed to facilitate quickly and efficiently killing other people as soon as you see them and are being used for exactly that purpose.

Might it be that you do not want to discuss that subject because you think that any giving in on firearm restrictions will lead down the slippery slope to total loss of the right to own firearms? Nah, can’t be that. Like you said that is just ignorant ranting.

 

[Revoltingest]

To hide behind arbitrary definitions to pretend that deadly weapons are harmless toys is dishonest.

I'll call that straw.
But if you find anyone doing that, you've my permission to call'm a "poopy head".

It all boils down to this.
If one wants to advocate regarding an issue, tis best to be informed & thoughtful.
Civil, of course, is wonderful too.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not according to my sources a battle rifle fires a full power cartridge and has selective fire, a assault rifle fires an intermediate cartridge and has selective fire. I will go with those that know my sources not the general public. Even in your above statement you contradict yourself. (see highlighted words)
Firearms Semantics: "Battle Rifle" and "Assault Rifle" - The Firearm Blog

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-assault-rifle-and-a-battle-rifle



So again we have people with some understanding of firearm terminology, then we have some with little or no understanding of firearm terminology and this is where I have a problem. If you are going to discuss a subject it would behoove one to know a little more than what the general public knows, especially those that have little or no knowledge of firearms and write laws. This also goes for the sheepel that following the no-nothing-pied-pipers.

Well let's put it this way rather than talk/debate about schematics. The M1 is compliant with New York State Safe Act, that's good enough for me. ;0)